I was just thinking, we have the writings of the disciples of The Apostles. Clement was the disciple of Paul(Or was it Peter?). Ignatius was the disciple of John. Polycarp was another disciple of John. I think this is a huge thing that the people that the apostles taught face to face were Catholic in every sense of the word. I think this is the greatest proof of the Church; that the disciples of the Apostles were Catholic. Were there any others that were disciples of the Apostles that we have writings of? Who were they the disciples of?

[quote=jimmy]I was just thinking, we have the writings of the disciples of The Apostles. Clement was the disciple of Paul(Or was it Peter?) … Were there any others that were disciples of the Apostles that we have writings of?
[/quote]

It was Peter.

The author of “The Letter of Barnabas” has been said to have been the very same desciple of Paul, but this is historically doubtful.

St. Papias (according to Irenaeus) was a “hearer” of the Apostle John. Portions of his writing, “Explanation of the Sayings of the Lord” have survived.

[quote=jimmy]I was just thinking, we have the writings of the disciples of The Apostles. Clement was the disciple of Paul(Or was it Peter?). Ignatius was the disciple of John. Polycarp was another disciple of John. I think this is a huge thing that the people that the apostles taught face to face were Catholic in every sense of the word. I think this is the greatest proof of the Church; that the disciples of the Apostles were Catholic. Were there any others that were disciples of the Apostles that we have writings of? Who were they the disciples of?
[/quote]

Let’s not forget one of the most famous, the author of the Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Luke. He was a disciple of Paul. As a side thought, if there was no Apostolic succession as some protestors think, does that negate the validity of the Gospel of Luke?… LOL

[quote=Tom]Let’s not forget one of the most famous, the author of the Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Luke. He was a disciple of Paul. As a side thought, if there was no Apostolic succession as some protestors think, does that negate the validity of the Gospel of Luke?… LOL
[/quote]

Luke was not to my knowledge a bishop so I would say that is not a good arguement. Though your point is an interesting one since both Luke and Mark were not Apostles nor do I see anyone claiming them to be prophets.

Eph 3

4] When you read this you can perceive my insight into the mystery of Christ,5] which was not made known to the sons of men in other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;

Therefore what Luke and Mark wrote did not come directly to them but was tradition passed on to them from the Apostles. Hmmm. This needs more discussion and thought I think.

**Elzee said: Where can I find the writings of these disciples? I feel like this needs to be the next stop in my learning…

**Elzee, another place you might look is the book series “Faith of the Early Fathers”, by Jurgens. I got mine at a Catholic bookstore but happily I’ve even seen them at Borders.

Volume 1 has writings of the pre-Nicene Fathers, the ones closer to the times of the apostles. While there are not as many writings as there are on the links that have already been provided above, it is very good and even has an index in the back, showing where Catholic beliefs are supported, so you can look it up. I bought my Volume 1 seperately.

There is an excellent book out called “the Four Fathers” by Rob Bennent. This book deals solely with four early fathers who knew the original apostles directly. There are numerous footnotes and the book is extremely enjoyable and it is packed with doctrinal insight as well. You may go to Amazon.com to secure a copy. I HIGHLY recommend it.

[quote=thessalonian]Luke was not to my knowledge a bishop so I would say that is not a good arguement. Though your point is an interesting one since both Luke and Mark were not Apostles nor do I see anyone claiming them to be prophets.
[/quote]

One does not need to be a bishop to be a disciple and to correctly receive apostolic tradition. Most of the apostles were not bishops either. (In fact, in what I’ve read so far in Eusebius’ The History of the Church, the only direct indication that any of the 12 apostles were bishops was that of Peter being Bishop of Antioch.)

However, apostolic succession does require the passing of valid orders from one to another. Perhaps Mark and Luke were ordained as priests. There were many local churches and pastors within a diocese in which a bishop served.

[quote=petra]One does not need to be a bishop to be a disciple and to correctly receive apostolic tradition. Most of the apostles were not bishops either. (In fact, in what I’ve read so far in Eusebius’ The History of the Church, the only direct indication that any of the 12 apostles were bishops was that of Peter being Bishop of Antioch.)

However, apostolic succession does require the passing of valid orders from one to another. Perhaps Mark and Luke were ordained as priests. There were many local churches and pastors within a diocese in which a bishop served.
[/quote]

I think that Luke was more than a Preist because he was traveling with Paul.

[quote=piety101]There is an excellent book out called “the Four Fathers” by Rob Bennent. This book deals solely with four early fathers who knew the original apostles directly. There are numerous footnotes and the book is extremely enjoyable and it is packed with doctrinal insight as well. You may go to Amazon.com to secure a copy. I HIGHLY recommend it.
[/quote]

I think that is the guy that was on Jouney Home this week. I just watched it this morning on EWTN.com.

[quote=petra]One does not need to be a bishop to be a disciple and to correctly receive apostolic tradition. Most of the apostles were not bishops either. (In fact, in what I’ve read so far in Eusebius’ The History of the Church, the only direct indication that any of the 12 apostles were bishops was that of Peter being Bishop of Antioch.)

However, apostolic succession does require the passing of valid orders from one to another. Perhaps Mark and Luke were ordained as priests. There were many local churches and pastors within a diocese in which a bishop served.
[/quote]

I think your confusing the passing on of tradition and Apostolic tradition.
Apostolic Succession is not through the priests. It is through the Bishops. The priests are to assist a Bishop. Priests cannot pass on Apostolic Succession because they cannot ordain. One must be a Bishop to do so. Bishops most definitely pass Apostolic Tradition on to priests. It is not neccessary to be clergy to recieve Apostolic Tradition. Even the laity can recieve Apostolic Tradition (2 Tim 2:2).

As for Bishops, Apostles are actually a higher office than Bishop. Bishops are not Apostles but successors of Apostles. I don’t know whether Luke and Mark were priests or not. It doesn’t matter. They were not Apostles and Prophets which is where scripture tells us God handed down the faith.

[quote=thessalonian]I think your confusing the passing on of tradition and Apostolic tradition.
Apostolic Succession is not through the priests. It is through the Bishops. The priests are to assist a Bishop. Priests cannot pass on Apostolic Succession because they cannot ordain. One must be a Bishop to do so. Bishops most definitely pass Apostolic Tradition on to priests. It is not neccessary to be clergy to recieve Apostolic Tradition. Even the laity can recieve Apostolic Tradition (2 Tim 2:2).

As for Bishops, Apostles are actually a higher office than Bishop. Bishops are not Apostles but successors of Apostles. I don’t know whether Luke and Mark were priests or not. It doesn’t matter. They were not Apostles and Prophets which is where scripture tells us God handed down the faith.

Blessings
[/quote]

Thanks for the correction on ordination!

But are you questioning Mark and Luke’s authority to record inspired scripture?

But are you questioning Mark and Luke’s authority to record inspired scripture?
[/quote]

No. I am only wondering the mechaism. I don’t see anything in scripture that says the one who recieves it writes it. As I understand it, for instance, the book of Genesis was not written until the time of Moses. So did God have to re-reveal to Moses what he had already revealed to man through Adam, Abraham, and others? Or did someone just write it down much later. As for Luke and Mark the qeustion is just where did the revelation they recieved come from. I have no doudt it is legit. Was it a direct revelation from God or a part of Oral Tradition that they captured in scripture. From the quotes I posted on the other thread I tend toward the later. I see this as a large problem for Protestants and hope they have an answer.